January 10, 2018

I'll call him a table genius. Look at him, with members of Congress arrayed around him at that table. The news media had to keep the cameras running live. After spending the last week promoting the theory that he's stupid and crazy, the media look stupid and crazy, as he's clearly in command, speaking coherently, behaving competently, and getting full respect from the members of Congress. This really was a perfect response the barrage of criticism that bounced off Michael Wolff's convenient-but-fake book:

For comparison, here's Michael Wolff squirming under questioning from Norah O'Donnell (who smiles sunnily as she goes for the jugular):

NOTE: This is a post I'd originally put up at 5:56 this morning, but it got deleted somehow, not intentionally.

Trump stumbled through the details of immigration reform negotiations so badly, he had to be pulled back by Rep. Kevin McCarthy, who was so clearly horrified by what he was hearing, he had to interrupt Trump.

Tucker Carlson asked, why did Trump bother to run for President?

Ann Coulter went ballistic with her criticism:

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2018-01-10.html#read_more

I get it, that you don't wish to be troubled by boring things like issues. But this is ridiculous. Trump didn't prove his competency; Trump largely proved his complete lack of competence.

I would accept the package deal: (1) Give DACA folks a path to citizenship and (2) Build the Wall.

That's nuts.

"DACA" is what had all the Obama-hating, Tea-party types going crazy over over Obama's illegal executive order(s).

A "pathway to citizenship" is the gold standard for Democratic success on immigration. A majority of Republicans in Congress despise any legislation that gives Democrats millions of new activated voters.

For a wall? A stupid, ill-advised campaign slogan? A thing that will never be built as Trump fantasized, and which was already approved by Congress in a much more modest, reasonable vision to which Trump never paid any attention?

Thanks for reposting. Perhaps I'm making a point that others have made in the earlier comments section. Today (Wednesday) Trump made some kind of announcement or tweet that the discussions with Congressional delegation dealt with four immigration related issues: (a) making legal people who came here as children, (b) chain migration, (c) border security, and (d) citizenship for those already here illegally. Weinstein asked Trump "if we pass DACA will you support comprehensive immigration reform" and Trump said (essentially) "yes". But Weinstein and Trump defined the terms differently: By "DACA" Weinstein and democrats, meant issue (a) and by "comprehensive immigration reform" Weinstein and democrats meant (b), (c) and (d). But Trump meant "DACA" to refer to (a) (b) and (c) leaving only (d) as "comprehensive immigration reform". Viewed in this way, Trump has been totally consistent: He regards border security and chain migration as essential parts of the solution to (a). And (in my opinion) if you read the comments in yesterday's WH session, there is nothing that contradicts this interpretation. I even believe that many of those present (at least on the Republican side and I think Trump himself) understood this. It is a little amazing to me that journalists are not smart enough to see it. And finally, it is not at all clear that there is a basis here for a "compromise" on immigration -- I'm not sure that Reps and Dems are any closer than they were before the meeting.

Chuck -- Get real. Trump simply didn't understand a single piece of inside-the-beltway jargon "clean bill". When Feinstein said that's what she and the Democrats wanted, as in a 'clean DACA bill', Trump said that's what he wanted, too. When it was pointed out that to Trump that he had misunderstood what Feinstein had meant by 'clean bill', he quickly reiterated he wanted a clean bill that allowed dreamers to stay in the country, funded the wall, ended chain migration, and ended the lottery system.

Yes, Tucker Carlson went ballistic on Trump at the beginning of his show last night. It took Britt Hume to talk him down by pointing out to Tucker what I just pointed out to you. Which, brings up another point: Too often we judge others' intelligence by what we assume is common knowledge. If you're a political junkie, you know all the jargon used by congresscritters and the like. When someone doesn't immediately understand such jargon, you might (often wrongly) assume that he or she is an idiot. Similarly, if you're into popular culture -- know all the hit songs by heart, see all the new shows, watch all the new movies -- you might question the intelligence of someone who doesn't know who Nicole Whatshername is. Of course, the guy who doesn't follow politics and thus doesn't know what a clean bill is might build CNC routers in his basement shop from parts he buys at swap meets, when he's not working at his day job as a chemical engineer, but go ahead and judge his IQ because he doesn't know the same terms you and all your friends do.

I think people should directly watch Trump and how he handles himself at a meeting or at a rally if they want to know what Trump is like. And if they want to read a book they should read Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns that Put Donald Trump in the White House by Donna Brazile. There is a real tell-tale story that might lead to further legal action and to change. This thing from Wolf is pointless as even mainstream media seem to know. Bannon has lost his job and he made Breitbart.com look bad. That will be the only real consequence.

DKWalser is making essentially the same point I was trying to make, but does it better because (a) he (she) spells Sen Feinstein's name correctly, and (b) he (she) uses the term "clean bill" which ties more clearly to the discussion at yesterday's meeting.

All those guys who are so hated in TrumpWorld and in BannonLand -- the guys who get ridiculed regularly on these comments pages; McCain, Flake, Rubio, Jeb Bush, Graham -- they would all be immigration hard-liners compared to what Trump was talking about on Tuesday.

I disagree with Inga that the term "clean bill" has meaning that is the democrat definition and that is universally accepted in policy circles. It's like if I said (which I never would): "the term 'mentally ill' is universally accepted to mean 'opposes Trump' so I conclude that Inga is mentally ill."

Of course it isn't even that simple. Trump went around the room, agreeing with everybody in turn. As Ann Coulter alluded, Trump listened to Senator A say something and basically said, that he thought everybody could agree to that. And then Representative B said something that was the opposite, and Trump agreed with that as well.

I expect that there were a whole bunch of health care reform meetings that went the same way; and Trump afterward pronounced them all great meetings. The net result being that Congress simply gave up on the President and tried to do something on their own, for which Trump could hope to take credit himself.

And now, the further we go, the more we get to Trump's big bargaining chip; he wants "the Wall," because it is one of the very few simplistic things he can understand. And I expect that Republicans will have to pay dearly in any negotiation, to preserve Trump's silly "wall." It will be the shittiest deal that anyone could imagine while Republicans own majorities in both houses of Congress.

As my comments will show, I am not a Hillary Clinton apologist, but Rob Frankel's comment at 6 pm is trying to get people to buy his book which is (almost certainly) a fictional account of "Hillary's diaries" ("handwritten" but in a word font -- really?). I like the comments in althouse, but I do object to people who try to use it to drum up business for their commercial products. I think that would serve as a (not related to opinion content) reason to remove the comment.

First of all Molly, you need to know that it’s Feinstein not Weinstein. Of course a President that has been there an entire year should know what the term “clean bill” means. How is it that I, who never served in Congress knows what the term clean bill means? You people are enablers of this President’s incompetancy. Why are you not expecting him to have even the most rudimentary terminology of governing? Actually I think he might have known what clean bill was, but got confused about what he himself wanted in it.

"and which was already approved by Congress in a much more modest, reasonable vision"

Not funded, not built. And moreover, enforcement was unenthusiastic. The problem with walls is that they are useless without a garrison. The Trumpian implication is that "the wall" would have an active, motivated garrison.

The problem with a wall is that the next administration can simply negate it by letting the garrison slack off, or wither away.

The Israeli wall is a tactical aid, the real wall is a complex and expensive security system, that prevents, among other things, persons from crossing or breaching that physical wall.

The problem with a wall is that its not really a wall that matters, but a public attitude towards a "wall". Which is in fact what Trump was selling. Its no accident that this idea, of all the generalized ideas in US politics, is by far the most popular.

The idea of a "wall" as a simple physical thing, of concrete and steel, is a reductive absurdity. A straw-man. Opponents of "the wall", as it matters, like to limit the matter to the wall as an object.

Granted, the wall needs to be an object, and a prepossessing one. It is a symbol as much as anything else.

The long term problem remains. The wall will certainly "fall", with the next administration, regardless of what the public wants.

In looking at the big picture, I just don't believe the Dems are capable of compromising on any issue, including immigration. If they don't get their way, they will oppose and stonewall any attempt at legislation. And their appointed judges will do the same.

Inga, I don't even think Trump gets a pass on the "clean bill" jargon. Senator Feinstein started by talking about merely doing DACA "first," and Trump readily agreed. You could almost hear the Republicans climbing the walls, until Rep. McCarthy broke in.

I just don't get where Althouse comes up with the odd notion that this was a shining moment for Trump in pushing back against the Wolff book. It was the total opposite! The Wolff book seems to have indicated that Trump didn't read anything, and didn't allow himself to be properly briefed and prepared. This meeting did a lot to prove that very thing. Trump wasn't prepared. He wasn't sharp. He was the same rough, disinterested, glad-handing campaigner.

That Trump didn't get the insider jargon of the Congress critters is not that big of a deal. He has 'people' to explain to him what a clean bill means.

what DKWalser said at 5:41 is correct.

Trump knows all sorts of insider jargon related to business, economics and investing. Just because many of you on this board don't know what a Sharpe Ratio is and how it is used in constructing a portfolio, or don't know how to explain the calculations in a Bond's Duration and why that is important, or what an Equity Ratio is and how to calculate it and what it actually means.....doesn't make you dumb or UNeducated. That's why you have 'people' like me (or used to until I retired) to 'splain those things to you.

You can spend all your time trying to "know" everything possible that you may or may not need at any moment in time, or you can get busy and get things done and rely on your 'people' to help you get up to speed on the things you need to know WHEN you need to know them.

I would be more worried about the person who doesn't look at the big picture and spends too much time on minutia. Trump is a big picture kinda guy and it seems to have been working out rather well for him so far in his life.

“Inga, I don't even think Trump gets a pass on the "clean bill" jargon. Senator Feinstein started by talking about merely doing DACA "first," and Trump readily agreed. You could almost hear the Republicans climbing the walls, until Rep. McCarthy broke in.”

Chuck, I was watching the faces of the participants in that meeting and there were people who were getting very frustrated at his inability to keep up with the argumentation. I understand it was rapid, but he is President! Why have Trumpists set the bar SO low for him, then continue to enable him? He did better than I expected in the meeting, but I don’t have many expectations from him. One thing he did, which was allow cameras in there was great and I do give him credit for that. He should do it more often

One thing Trump has done is remove the mis conception that being President is a tough job.Any Democrat or LLR will agree that Trump is an idiot and yet he shows up for work everyday to do the presidenting. And, only seems to take a few hours each day.

Did those Democrats who sat close to POTUS VSG to get face time with him?

Any Democrat or LLR will agree that Trump is an idiot ...

Love that Idiot who makes billions and makes everything he does looks easy. Love that Idiot who dis-mystifies political offices. You really don't need all that kissing old guards' rear ends to become president. You really don't need to keep quiet when Fake Media lie about you. The Idiot accomplishes things that the most credentialed, most qualified Smartest Woman on Earth could not accomplish.

"The problem with a wall is that the next administration can simply negate it by letting the garrison slack off, or wither away."

Enhanced enforcement, or whatever their calling the not-wall solution, has this problem in spades. It's why I support a physical wall. The next administration can turn off radar, motion senors, whatever. They can't actually turn off a wall.

- The wall can be built, and it will be effective, for a while. Its idea is effective already, illegal immigration is down, a lot. Even foreign enrollment in US universities is way down distressing colleges all over. This was a very common back-door into the US. And, etc., as I think will become evident when the stats come in. A great deal of this is psychology.

- Minutiae don't matter. This all concerns things that are so massive and so complex that all the relevant details cannot be known, or the mechanics understood, or the consequences predicted. Its just so, human capabilities are inadequate. The nature of minutiae is that they will be forgotten quickly as the big picture shifts. To be replaced by some other bit of minutiae.

- The wall, and all associated policies and their psychological effects, will be blown away, as in a typhoon, come the next Presidency. If you don't like the wall, don't worry. At best it will have its season, and then will be gone. The new executive will call off the guards (quietly, or couched in some comforting formula), and then you will be deluged. These things are meant to preserve a bubble of privilege for the US common man, the citizen, but technology will not permit that for much longer, and neither will your true masters.

Walls are easily climbed, breached, tunneled under, or otherwise evaded, if there are no guards. Or even simply to stop watching the gates, through which tens of thousands already pass today. It will absolutely not be in the interest of the next administration to prevent any of these things.

All those guys who are so hated in TrumpWorld and in BannonLand -- the guys who get ridiculed regularly on these comments pages; McCain, Flake, Rubio, Jeb Bush, Graham -- they would all be immigration hard-liners compared to what Trump was talking about on Tuesday.

I call bullshit. Graham edgy and McCain were willing to sell us out for nothing.

It is entertaining watching the crazies and idiots insist that Trump is stupid and crazy after almost 3 years of getting destroyed and humiliated by him. We could post all of his accomplishments to this point since he announced for president but it would be gratuitous.

At the end of the day the wall will be built, e-verify will be enforced, chain migration will be curtailed, and DACA recipients will get permanent status because each one of these things is immensely popular. The Dems were squirming because they see that train rolling down the tracks.

It will be even more fun watching Chuck and Inga go nuts when democrats start going to jail for Russian collusion.

I am not sure what the PB&J actually wants. One could assume this entity indulging in nihilism, but there is more of an agenda. What purpose is behind the enigma of its text? Besides the free-flowing contempt.

I am not sure what the PB&J actually wants. One could assume this entity indulging in nihilism, but there is more of an agenda. What purpose is behind the enigma of its text? Besides the free-flowing contempt.

Too much has been invested in Trump failing. As he keeps piling up success after success while they predict failure and doom it erodes their paradigm of the world.

At first it is just about power over others. The recent insanity is a result of the crushing amounts of cognitive dissonance flowing over them.

All those guys who are so hated in TrumpWorld and in BannonLand -- the guys who get ridiculed regularly on these comments pages; McCain, Flake, Rubio, Jeb Bush, Graham -- they would all be immigration hard-liners compared to what Trump was talking about on Tuesday.

I'm not quoting Chuck for the purpose of ragging on Chuck. Although I often disagree with him, I always read Chuck's comments with interest. My reason to quote Chuck here is his listing of McCain, Flake, Rubio, Jeb Bush and Graham, followed by "they would be", etc., and that is how I see those guys, as the would-bes. As in they would be...but they are not.

Not to focus on specific individuals, but there are some people here who cannot see the forest for the trees.

I was a consulting business psychologist for nearly two decades. I learned not to rely on information from HR professionals because they had no idea about how to run a business, their knowledge was totally book-learned and knowing how to play the insider politics game was more important than knowing how to make a buck.

I think that's why I am starting to actually like Trump. He is the opposite of those types of useless fools.

I’ve met Trump once and been in a small gathering (<200 people) with him twice. He ain’t no dummy, think what you will. He’s charismatic (like Reagan who I also met) and REAL. He relates to the people he meets and to the crowd to whom he is speaking.

Dis him all you want, but what you see is what you get with DJT. If he doesn’t conform to one of your norms, I’d suggest you get your norms re-aligned

"The wall, and all associated policies and their psychological effects, will be blown away, as in a typhoon, come the next Presidency. If you don't like the wall, don't worry. At best it will have its season, and then will be gone."--Well, aren't you a breath of inspiration.Sounds like you'd prefer preserving energy by walking away from the issue.

"I’ve met Trump once and been in a small gathering (<200 people) with him twice. He ain’t no dummy, think what you will. He’s charismatic (like Reagan who I also met) and REAL. He relates to the people he meets and to the crowd to whom he is speaking."

Well, I know several hardcore conservatives who have done biz w/ and around him. They all say he's a swindler re the swindle-able.

Why are you not expecting him to have even the most rudimentary terminology of governing?

Some adults judge based on results and don't get distracted by gossip and minutia. If things in fours years are as stable as they are now, the stable genius will have earned my vote, even if he uses his two feet to drink a glass of water.

Democrats will never agree to the wall so Trump never has to normalize the DACAs. Democrats lose to their left and to their right. Trump wins to his right and does no harm in the middle.

Watching the video, I can't shake the impression that Trump is deliberately providing a kind of tutorial for Republican congresspeople. No pussy hats evident, but a populist conservative movement is being built, independent of the ephemera of any particular election.

Everybody commenting here knows what a “clean bill” is, and we are therefore more knowledgeable than Trump, which really means we’re smarter, right? But ask yourself, smart guy/gal, for whom was this performance intended? It wasn’t intended for you. It was intended for people who don’t know what the politicians mean by a “clean bill”, but who like the idea of settling some important issues by getting politicians to set partisanship aside and just make some reasonable decisions. Let the DACA folks stay, but get started on effective barriers to new illegal immigration. Sounds pretty “clean” to Joe and Jane Sixpack.

During a CNN interview, Paul shared his thoughts on having a wall along the Southern border:

“I remain a fiscal conservative, even on the wall, so I’m not excited about spending $20, $30, $40 billion on a wall. I’m still a believer that we don’t have money to spend. We’re $700 billion in the hole. While I will vote for money for barriers, I’m not voting for $40 billion for barriers.”

“The barriers, I think we need to look at the cost of them. The people advocating for it are forgetting they’re fiscally conservative and are just giving enormous numbers.”

ARM"Trump is a one issue president - immigration, or more accurately anti-immigration - and he can't even get that right."

Indeed. But non issues such as the appointment of conservative judges, the rollback of regulatory headwinds, the withdrawal from the Paris Accord, the passage of a Tax reform bill, to name just a few, have been getting done and done right.

And as much as I loathed him, I tried always to write his name as President Obama.

From ARM's link: In the corrected version, which the White House sent out Wednesday morning—nearly 24 hours after the meeting took place—Sen. Dianne Feinstein asked Trump about the possibility of passing a legislative solution for DACA before turning to immigration reform, which would include issues like tougher border security.

Trump responded, “I would like — I would like to do that. Go ahead. I think a lot of people would like to see that, but I think we have to do DACA first. “

In the initial version, which the White House released on Tuesday, that comment from Trump was omitted. Instead, the quote read, “I think a lot of people would like to see that, but I think we have to do DACA first.”

The White House story: it’s all on the stenographer. I suppose that’s possible. It’s just odd, the way that the most damning part of the quote was initially whisked away.

Hey: at least they didn’t doctor the actual video. That’s the way Obama’s shop used to do it.

“Democrats will never agree to the wall so Trump never has to normalize the DACAs. Democrats lose to their left and to their right. Trump wins to his right and does no harm in the middle.”

Either Trump is an idiot, or he is smarter than the Dem leadership in Congress. My vote is the latter. We shall see.

Working backwards, a true “clean bill” DACA bill is not going to fly. The Trump base, and the Republican can base won’t allow it, and they control at least the House. A clean DACA bill could probably pass the Senate, with several (known) Republican defections. But won’t pass in the House, because the anti-illegal immigration Republicans cans control the caucus, which means that they can, very likely, keep it off the floor there. What might pass would be what Trump seems to find acceptable- normalization, without a shortcut to citizenship, for DACA recipients, an end to chain migration, and building more of the wall. Chain migration has to go if DACA is going to pass, because otherwise the new DACA citizens could bring in the parents that snuck them over the border when they were little, as well as their siblings, then their aunts, uncles, cousins, and ultimately their entire villages back in Mexico and places south. This is why the Dems were salivating. And their Congressional leadership jumped on it. We now have that strategy memo laying out why the Dems want to give citizenship to illegals so badly, what we already knew - for the new Dem voters. Losing the white working class, it is their last real chance at a demographic majority.

Comprehensive immigration reform is dead currently. Trump wouldn’t, and couldn’t, sign it. And the GOPe has been found out, trying to sneak a deal through. Which is why the hapless Eric Cantor lost his seat so publicly. Again, everyone knows the game now - the Chamber of Commerce Republicans doing a deal with the Democrats so that the former get their cheap labor, and the latter get millions of new voters. Compounding the problem is that the White working class, moving towards the Republicans now, strongly oppose legalizing tens of millions of illegals and many millions more from third world countries. The only way to enact comprehensive reform is if one party or the other gets a 60 vote majority in the Senate and a comfortable majority in the House, and they can then pass it on their terms.

Continuing - so that puts us into an election year with Trump’s biggest promise still unfulfilled, but most of the others either done, or mostly so. The Senate Dems are voting in lockstep, which is their weakness here. As with Obamacare, the moderate or centrist Democrats are going to be forced into voting for DACA reform by their leadership. Going to be forced to commit electoral suicide, at a time when most of the seats in the Senate up for (re)election this year are Democratic. They will vote for clean DACA normalization, but vote against it if combined with an end to chain migration or the wall. This is essential- they have to go on the record and vote. Which for 8-10 of them from Red or Trump states likely means their losing their reelection bids, giving the Republicans their 60 vote majority starting next year. The election ads write themselves - voting in favor of giving Dreamers citizenship, but against repealing chain migration, which would likely result in tens of millions of new citizens from 3rd world countries, many, if not most functionally illiterate, and only capable of collecting welfare. Plus shots of them with swarmy Chuckie Schumer, reminding the voters that they are his puppets, voting how he tells them to. (Worked great in the MT special election with pictures of the Dem with pictures of Pelosi, with a similar message).

We really have only two big issues for Congress in this election year - immigration and budget. And the budget is far too messy to be dealt with this late in this Congress, which leaves immigration. Hopefully, with a strengthened majority in the next Congress, the Republicans can reform the budget, like they did taxes last year. Which, I think why, Trump had that very public, televised, meeting with Congressional leaders. He is forcing them to deal with DACA, chain migration, and the wall, at precisely the time that that they would least want to. The only other thing of note happening this year in Congress is likely to be Congressional hearings into abuse of Power, primarily in the DoJ and FBI, by the Obama Administration and their Deep State enablers and fellow travelers. Not something the Dem party and their MSM sycophants want the country focusing on. Winning.

Also, note how Trump opened the negotiations. He got general buy in from the other side. They gave their negotiating position first. He agreed that it was reasonable, but then later reminded everyone that they were overlooking something. That his understanding of the agreement was a little different than theirs (by not exactly understanding “clean bill”, etc). But if they will flex a bit there, they can have the deal that they have essentially already agreed to in principle. Classic negotiating and deal making. Probably anyone who has had experience in decently large dollar negotiations has seen similar. The one company that I dealt with several times in negotiations that would inevitably utilize this tactic was IBM. You could pretty well guarantee that they would find a number of issues that had to be clarified (to their advantage) after coming to a high level conceptual agreement with them. Like clockwork. You have emotionally bought into the deal, and aren’t going to let a couple of (major) technicalities get in the way of completing it.

So, back to my original question - is Trump an idiot here? Or is the (putative) author of “The Art of the Deal” outsmarting his opponents here?

Please tell me how extending DACA and "reforming" immigration law in return for a promise of increased security and scrutiny of visitors is going to be different this time from 1987? I see the amnesty path gaining steam, the flow of illegal immigrants increasing, Democrats remaining locked in groupthink and Republicans compromising at every turn just to get the "smart people" to like them and invite them to cocktail parties.

Mac McConnell said...I agree with Bruce Hayden on this. But, what I thought was so great about "the meeting" was how the usual self assured Denny Hoyer sat next to President Trump like a cowering dog.

Steny Hoyer.

I really didn't see many Democrats challenging the fundamental position(s) of their representatives at that meeting. They know exactly where they stand.

But at the same time, there were too many conservative/Republican loyalists to count, who were savaging Trump for his incomprehensibly waffling statements, which of course Trump had to later tweet out some clarification, starting, "As I made very clear in the meeting..."

If you had made it very clear in the meeting, you'd have no need to tweet out clarifications, with the always laughable, "as I made very clear..."

Chuck Maybe I missed it, did President Trump sign any documents promising anything at the meeting? I might also be unaware of a Presidential presser after the meeting promising anything. Don't be such a Pollyanna.

Mac McConnell said...Chuck Maybe I missed it, did President Trump sign any documents promising anything at the meeting? I might also be unaware of a Presidential presser after the meeting promising anything. Don't be such a Pollyanna.

Lulz. Nope, he didn't sign anything. But what he said was that he would sign anything that Congress sent to him.

Is that how Trump negotiates? Just work it out, and send it up to me, and I'll sign it...?

Everybody's discussing the minutia of the meeting as if they were going to hammer out a deal right there in an hour with the press watching. Nobody really thinks that do they?

If no deal was going to be hammered out, why hold the President to that standard? The president wanted to get the fighting started between the parties and look presidential and in the middle. He did that. Folding his arms and looking like the Head Guy in Charge. So in the middle that both the left and the right were saying he was betraying their side. Mission accomplished.

I don't think the democrats even want a clean DACA bill. They know they can't get that with the current House structure (see Bruce Hayden's excellent summary above). No, they want to shut down the government to force the clean DACA bill. That's the only way they think the house republicans will acquiesce to such a bill. How do I know that? Because it comes up with EVERY interview on CNN about immigration. Democrats say they don't want to shutdown the government but you can practically see the winking as they say it.

The underlying nut with a government shutdown is that nobody really knows what will be the fallout. I can see that Nancy Pelosi thinks it will guarantee her the speakership, but I don't think you can say that Trump will behave as past Republicans. It certainly won't look like the 2013 shutdown.

The underlying nut with a government shutdown is that nobody really knows what will be the fallout.

It's one thing to have a government shutdown when your guy is in charge of the executive branch and can shut down parks that don't even have an attendant and do other things to make the shutdown as painful as possible. But what happens if congress shuts down the government and Trump does everything possible to keep things running a smoothly as possible and uses twitter to put out a message that seniors aren't getting their social security checks because democrats want to import more violent gang members?

And in the end, Chuck, Trump will get what he wanted in the first place.remember the DACA bill will be attached to funding for the wall. All kinds of legislative and executive maneuvering is going to go on. But one thing you have to keep in mind, which you keep forgetting. It isn't a deal until it's a done deal. And what he says for the cameras isn't a contract.

CNN seems awfully giddy about the prospect of a government shutdown. Just as they were giddy at the prospect of a Trump nomination. #NoPathTo270. That worked well until he won. Now government shutdown equates to #BlueWave2018.

I agree with the above poster who noted that a misunderstanding about what a 'clean bill' means isn't relevant to the average person. When I watch what trump says and does, I attempt to analyze it from the perspective of an average voter who doesn't follow this stuff daily the way many of us do. I think trump's meeting accomplished most of what he wanted. He looks in charge and with it to the average person. Sure, the political partisan with an agenda will say it just showed he's a moron, but that's what partisans do always with a pol they don't l